But now from Brexit to Canada to Italy to Austria to Hungary the Trump Buchanan Perot ideology seems to be steamrolling everyone.

the Trump Buchanan Perot ideology you say - now what's that? I thought that Trump and associates represented a vacuous, chaotic absence of reflective thought on all issues: in effect, an ideaology-free zone.

No, there's an ideology in common to the three: anti-trade populism.

Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

I also get the impression that a disproportionate number of votes for the Liberal Party of Canada emanate from your french speaking province of Quebec. This implies to me that your Liberal Party attracts the voter support of those who have historically considered themselves "outsiders" in relation to the country's establishment. Very much like the polyglot support base of the Democrats Party in the United States.

Now I must share with you some bad news.

One of the lessons I learned during my, all too brief, recent visit to your country is that worker/employees in the more menial (low pay, low status) service industries are employed under identical terms and conditions to their peers and counterparts in the United States. Canada has had government by your (so-called) "parties of the left" before and it seems with hindsight that they have utterly ignored and neglected the best interests of Canada's class of employees (i.e. its working class.)

Yep, just like the Democrats Party in the United States!

Unlike the trade union based Labor/Labour Parties of (respectively) Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

In terms of the better employment conditions generally enjoyed by employees in my country I have drawn the conclusion (based upon information gained by me in conversations with Canadians) that my country owes an awful lot to our Australian Labor party. Had I not recently visited your country I would still probably still be innocently unaware of this.

So Milo, please excuse me if I seem to have the impertinence to regard your claim that the Liberal party of Canada is "left wing" as being downright laughable.

The trouble with some people - American, Canadian or even European - is thinking that left ideas are anti-nature and utopian, and therefore must be imposed by force. Altruism is no less natural than greed, and we all have a bit of each. The question is that the right thinks that altruism is bad for you because it will keep you poorer, and the left thinks that altruism is better for all because it fosters the economic and social inclusion of over half of the population. And that will benefit also those who produce goods and services to be traded. Therefore such ideas do not need to be imposed by force, all we have to do is explaining, better than we have done so far, the benefits for all of being altruistic.

The trouble with some people - American, Canadian or even European - is thinking that left ideas are anti-nature and utopian, and therefore must be imposed by force. Altruism is no less natural than greed, and we all have a bit of each. The question is that the right thinks that altruism is bad for you because it will keep you poorer, and the left thinks that altruism is better for all because it fosters the economic and social inclusion of over half of the population. And that will benefit also those who produce goods and services to be traded. Therefore such ideas do not need to be imposed by force, all we have to do is explaining, better than we have done so far, the benefits for all of being altruistic.

Then why does Socialism end up producing the worst dictators and mass murderers in history? Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao and Hitler?

Then why does Socialism end up producing the worst dictators and mass murderers in history? Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao and Hitler?

Have you not flogged this pet canard of yours to death by now, Cassowary?

Not at all helpful!

Probably because all the rebuttals to it have not refuted his arguments... Start a topic on it and have a real debate.

What argument? He just tries to equate an ideology with a couple of individuals who made their own versions of said ideology. But he nevers addresses the basic aspects of the ideology, because he doesn't understand them...